http://home.insightbb.com/~george/Hyperthr...rthreading.htmlThis fellow performed many tests and his floating point math operation test shows up to 50% (!!) performance boost from hyperthreading.Michael J.

Hi Elrond,I feel a bit better after reading your post. I could deduce from what you say that there is no *technical* reason why FS9 could not run just as well as FS2002 on a reasonably up to date Athlon XP or non-HT P4. By that I mean on a feature for feature basis and maintaining similar image quality and functionality settings. (I do, however, expect the new weather engine and new GPS will require more grunt than the FS2002 versions). In other words the HT optimisation is not really a cause for concern for the non HT CPU owner. Or, to put it another way, if I find FS9 runs like an obese slug on my Athlon XP, I can't blame this HT business. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

I just wonder how those clouds are gonna be when we fly into them. Are they gonna have that wrap around effect? If in total over cast, are we going to just pop out of it while climbing instead of gradually leaving it like in the real world? Time will tell.

:-lol :-lolHoly schmokes! Number o' the beast and 13! I'm the devil fo' sho - gotta run and go check my scalp...:-wink2Great to see you around Ken. I hope all is well with you, the wife and the little one. Take care.Elrond

Hey Jon,Well, there's really no way to predict what FS9 will run like until it arrives. That it is based on the same graphics engine as FS2K2 means absolutely nothing because: who knows what advancements have been added to the engine in all that time. Let alone their hopefully improved air modeling, the new weather system, the new GPS, etc. It is good to hear they've added a specific optimization stage to the beta, as well as planned ahead of time for multiple threads.The most important thing off the top of my head that HT optimization *might* mean for single CPU, non-HT users: it should be less "stuttery" than it might have been without multiple threads - while updating terrain textures faster. With an HT CPU or a true dual-processor setup, it should run faster overall. In either case, its an improvement. What areas of the sim improve depends on where they have decided to implement multiple threads.So, no. If FS9 ends up running like a slug on your system, HT definitely won't be the reason - quite the reverse. Without HT optimization, it'd run even sluggier (is that a word?) no matter what the CPU(s) :-).Take care,Elrond

If their claim remains true in the shipping product, true volumetric clouds should behave almost exactly like the real thing (but you don't get wet sitting at your chair :-)).A project I was privy to a couple years ago running on an SGI station allowed me to see what true volumetric clouds are like - it was simply stunning. I have no doubt we're that far along now on the PC... FS9 should be amazing in that regard (again, if their publicly stated claims pan out - no reason to doubt it).Take care,Elrond

Thanks Elrond. Let's just hope, then, that the slugs stay in the garden where they belong!

>should be less "stuttery" than it might have been without >multiple threads - while updating terrain textures faster. >With an HT CPU or a true dual-processor setup, it should run >faster overall. I literally had about a minute of one-on-one time with Ken L. (head of the FS team) at the Tahoe conference last September. The only thing I managed to ask him was a chance to offload the terrain engine to another thread - his reply was that it was a real possibility. Maybe I planted some idea in his head ;-)Michael J.

The synchronization between the threads ought to be an interesting problem to work out![h3]Ken Salter (aka SaltyDog)[/h3]Fly! Forum Moderator[link:http://www.grid.org/services/teams/team.htm?id=5E79C613-0A60-4A3B-BDC1-F9EE49F2D4FE]Join the AVSIM Online Cancer Fight!!

>The synchronization between the threads ought to be an >interesting problem to work out! Not sure it applies to this case. Terrain engine should be in its own thread - aircraft should Not have to wait on terrain (like in FLY) but updated aircraft position should drive the other thread. I don't see any big problem with synchronization here - at least not in this specific case. Aircraft should be able to fly whether there is any terrain (or wrong one) or not. I once was working on a radar simulation software for a B-52 (it was ground mapping radar - this work was unclassified) and this is exactly how it worked. At that time (26+ years ago) threads were not exactly known yet but this Perkin-Elmer Interdata computer had foreground and background processes. The terrain update engine was in the background (lower priority) process. Michael J.

ooops

ChrisThe SOAR forum ( over a thousand members ) have a wish list and an attempt to overcome the lack of sink in fs2k2 and previous versions:http://virtualsoaring.org/iboard/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=3Do you know if any work is being done on this?ThanksBen